Dividing conference revenue up 16 ways would require a huge revenue input. I favor smaller conferences but if you’re going to merge the two conferences you need at least 14 members in my opinion, which would put them on par with the other 3 major conferences. Thus I would leave out TCU, Oklahoma State and Baylor, revenue be damned.
Again, all of this is just a few fans speculating. The real deciders are the school presidents and the networks.

I really like the AAC West lineup I have. But it depends on the PAC 12 and the Big XII merging, and that may or may not happen. It will probably be decided by money and TV coverage, with UT having the last say.

(03-27-2020 08:15 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Dividing conference revenue up 16 ways would require a huge revenue input. I favor smaller conferences but if you’re going to merge the two conferences you need at least 14 members in my opinion, which would put them on par with the other 3 major conferences. Thus I would leave out TCU, Oklahoma State and Baylor, revenue be damned.
Again, all of this is just a few fans speculating. The real deciders are the school presidents and the networks.

My thing is why do schools like Wazzu, Oregon st, Utah, Cal and even Colorado get a pass over schools like Iowa St and tcu? My perfect 16 would be :
Pacific division - SC, UCLA, Stanford, AZ, Asu, UW, OR, CO
Central division - UT, tech, ou, okie, Iowa St, ku, ksu, neb

If neb says no.. Put Co in the central and move Utah to the pacific

(03-27-2020 04:06 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 08:15 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Dividing conference revenue up 16 ways would require a huge revenue input. I favor smaller conferences but if you’re going to merge the two conferences you need at least 14 members in my opinion, which would put them on par with the other 3 major conferences. Thus I would leave out TCU, Oklahoma State and Baylor, revenue be damned.
Again, all of this is just a few fans speculating. The real deciders are the school presidents and the networks.

My thing is why do schools like Wazzu, Oregon st, Utah, Cal and even Colorado get a pass over schools like Iowa St and tcu? My perfect 16 would be :
Pacific division - SC, UCLA, Stanford, AZ, Asu, UW, OR, CO
Central division - UT, tech, ou, okie, Iowa St, ku, ksu, neb

If neb says no.. Put Co in the central and move Utah to the pacific

There is no chance Cal is going to be left out. This isn't just athletics. You're not leaving out the flagship school in the most populous state in the country. Colorado is pretty iffy. If any Pac 12 school has any chance of getting left out other than Washington State and Oregon State it would be one of the Arizona schools and maybe Utah although those I would find hard to believe as well. You can't justify leaving any of those out to bring in Iowa State. Yes you are bringing in a new state but they are a second choice in the state while Utah is a first choice in the state. Arizona State is a second choice but they're in the Phoenix metro. Ames isn't the Phoenix metro. Even if you consider ASU the #1 in Arizona, Tucson is way more populous than Ames (I didn't know this but the city itself has over half a million people) and Arizona has more than twice as many people than Iowa and is much closer to both California and Texas. TCU does have DFW going but they're a private school.

(03-27-2020 04:53 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 04:06 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 08:15 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Dividing conference revenue up 16 ways would require a huge revenue input. I favor smaller conferences but if you’re going to merge the two conferences you need at least 14 members in my opinion, which would put them on par with the other 3 major conferences. Thus I would leave out TCU, Oklahoma State and Baylor, revenue be damned.
Again, all of this is just a few fans speculating. The real deciders are the school presidents and the networks.

My thing is why do schools like Wazzu, Oregon st, Utah, Cal and even Colorado get a pass over schools like Iowa St and tcu? My perfect 16 would be :
Pacific division - SC, UCLA, Stanford, AZ, Asu, UW, OR, CO
Central division - UT, tech, ou, okie, Iowa St, ku, ksu, neb

If neb says no.. Put Co in the central and move Utah to the pacific

There is no chance Cal is going to be left out. This isn't just athletics. You're not leaving out the flagship school in the most populous state in the country. Colorado is pretty iffy. If any Pac 12 school has any chance of getting left out other than Washington State and Oregon State it would be one of the Arizona schools and maybe Utah although those I would find hard to believe as well. You can't justify leaving any of those out to bring in Iowa State. Yes you are bringing in a new state but they are a second choice in the state while Utah is a first choice in the state. Arizona State is a second choice but they're in the Phoenix metro. Ames isn't the Phoenix metro. Even if you consider ASU the #1 in Arizona, Tucson is way more populous than Ames (I didn't know this but the city itself has over half a million people) and Arizona has more than twice as many people than Iowa and is much closer to both California and Texas. TCU does have DFW going but they're a private school.

This is why I feel as a Texas fan.. just see if you can poach a private school like SC and both AZ schools with a blank check. The worst thing that they can say is No.. and the pac 12 can continue to fall revenue wise.

(03-27-2020 08:17 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 04:53 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 04:06 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 08:15 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Dividing conference revenue up 16 ways would require a huge revenue input. I favor smaller conferences but if you’re going to merge the two conferences you need at least 14 members in my opinion, which would put them on par with the other 3 major conferences. Thus I would leave out TCU, Oklahoma State and Baylor, revenue be damned.
Again, all of this is just a few fans speculating. The real deciders are the school presidents and the networks.

My thing is why do schools like Wazzu, Oregon st, Utah, Cal and even Colorado get a pass over schools like Iowa St and tcu? My perfect 16 would be :
Pacific division - SC, UCLA, Stanford, AZ, Asu, UW, OR, CO
Central division - UT, tech, ou, okie, Iowa St, ku, ksu, neb

If neb says no.. Put Co in the central and move Utah to the pacific

There is no chance Cal is going to be left out. This isn't just athletics. You're not leaving out the flagship school in the most populous state in the country. Colorado is pretty iffy. If any Pac 12 school has any chance of getting left out other than Washington State and Oregon State it would be one of the Arizona schools and maybe Utah although those I would find hard to believe as well. You can't justify leaving any of those out to bring in Iowa State. Yes you are bringing in a new state but they are a second choice in the state while Utah is a first choice in the state. Arizona State is a second choice but they're in the Phoenix metro. Ames isn't the Phoenix metro. Even if you consider ASU the #1 in Arizona, Tucson is way more populous than Ames (I didn't know this but the city itself has over half a million people) and Arizona has more than twice as many people than Iowa and is much closer to both California and Texas. TCU does have DFW going but they're a private school.

This is why I feel as a Texas fan.. just see if you can poach a private school like SC and both AZ schools with a blank check. The worst thing that they can say is No.. and the pac 12 can continue to fall revenue wise.

The Pac-12 will say/do the same thing to Texas/Oklahoma with the same thought.

I and I'm guessing a lot of people on this board believe that if the Pac-12 and Big 12 took its strongest members and combined it could form the "third" major and it would be stronger than either of the two conferences separately. The question is how do we do it? The Pac-12 people would like the Pac-12 to invite the Big 12's strongest members, the Big 12 people would like it the other way around, others think it should be a compromise where we take some of which conference but if so how many from each conference? In the compromise, both the Pac-12 schools and the Big 12 schools will want more of their conferences's schools represented.

In the end, the most likely outcome is neither side will be satisfied and the Pac-12 and Big 12 will remain two separate conferences. The real winners are the SEC and Big Ten who get will stay the two dominant conferences without the threat of the California-Texas joint conference (not that that conference would be a threat to either but if it doesn't happen no doubt they would still be the top two). We all know they (with the exception of the 6-8 schools that get left out) would be stronger together than apart. The problem is the schools themselves don't know that.

"I and I'm guessing a lot of people on this board believe that if the Pac-12 and Big 12 took its strongest members and combined it could form the "third" major and it would be stronger than either of the two conferences separately. The question is how do we do it? The Pac-12 people would like the Pac-12 to invite the Big 12's strongest members, the Big 12 people would like it the other way around, others think it should be a compromise where we take some of which conference but if so how many from each conference? In the compromise, both the Pac-12 schools and the Big 12 schools will want more of their conferences's schools represented.

In the end, the most likely outcome is neither side will be satisfied and the Pac-12 and Big 12 will remain two separate conferences. The real winners are the SEC and Big Ten who get will stay the two dominant conferences without the threat of the California-Texas joint conference (not that that conference would be a threat to either but if it doesn't happen no doubt they would still be the top two). We all know they (with the exception of the 6-8 schools that get left out) would be stronger together than apart. The problem is the schools themselves don't know that."

The Pac 12 is reportedly in financial trouble. The Big XII consists of only Texas and Oklahoma essentially. If there is going to be any changes to the status quo, the two conferences have to be combined. It will all come down to finances and college football playoff opportunities which the Pac 12 has been left out of in recent years. We'll see.

If they went with the states along the border (i.e: TT, UT, TCU, BAYLOR, UNM, UA, ASU, CAL, USC, UCLA, STANFORD + whoever wants to come along), that could be a viable conference.

I don't see Idaho rejoining FBS anytime soon. The Mountain West has already wrote them off multiple times.

(03-27-2020 09:18 PM)schmolik Wrote:  I and I'm guessing a lot of people on this board believe that if the Pac-12 and Big 12 took its strongest members and combined it could form the "third" major and it would be stronger than either of the two conferences separately. The question is how do we do it? ...

Seems like the only way it happens is they collectively agree to start a new major conference. The big brake on that happening at the Go5 and lower level is the lack of Tourney autobids for eight years, under the continuity rules ... but at that level, they'd be getting the bids anyway as at-large bids, so it's not a big functional difference.

Washington, Oregon, Cal, USC, UCLA, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and #12. Kansas, maybe.

What if there were only 4 power conferences. And the champion from each met in the College Football Playoff. Instead of relying on an arbitrary poll. Then the champion would truly be decided on the field instead of in someone’s computer.

(03-28-2020 09:39 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  What if there were only 4 power conferences. And the champion from each met in the College Football Playoff. Instead of relying on an arbitrary poll. Then the champion would truly be decided on the field instead of in someone’s computer.

Unless you're not in one of those 4 power conferences.

(03-28-2020 10:50 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-28-2020 09:39 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  What if there were only 4 power conferences. And the champion from each met in the College Football Playoff. Instead of relying on an arbitrary poll. Then the champion would truly be decided on the field instead of in someone’s computer.

Unless you're not in one of those 4 power conferences.

True, but there are still 6 New Years Day bowl games - plus all the others. And we would have a true National Champion.

(03-28-2020 03:20 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  "I and I'm guessing a lot of people on this board believe that if the Pac-12 and Big 12 took its strongest members and combined it could form the "third" major and it would be stronger than either of the two conferences separately. The question is how do we do it? The Pac-12 people would like the Pac-12 to invite the Big 12's strongest members, the Big 12 people would like it the other way around, others think it should be a compromise where we take some of which conference but if so how many from each conference? In the compromise, both the Pac-12 schools and the Big 12 schools will want more of their conferences's schools represented.

In the end, the most likely outcome is neither side will be satisfied and the Pac-12 and Big 12 will remain two separate conferences. The real winners are the SEC and Big Ten who get will stay the two dominant conferences without the threat of the California-Texas joint conference (not that that conference would be a threat to either but if it doesn't happen no doubt they would still be the top two). We all know they (with the exception of the 6-8 schools that get left out) would be stronger together than apart. The problem is the schools themselves don't know that."

The Pac 12 is reportedly in financial trouble. The Big XII consists of only Texas and Oklahoma essentially. If there is going to be any changes to the status quo, the two conferences have to be combined. It will all come down to finances and college football playoff opportunities which the Pac 12 has been left out of in recent years. We'll see.

UT-Austin and OK have lots of options. So long as OK continues its partnership with UT-Austin, re-upping with the B12 or merging with the PAC can result in growth over the next 10+ years. If OK wants to separate from TX, then the SEC gains a lot of leverage because the SEC becomes their clear best option. For UT-Austin, much like the last round of P5 realignment they can choose almost any scenario and make it work. In a merger with the PAC, UT-Austin and OK will likely prevail in designing the parameters of the founding merger...their dilemma will be that the PAC’s depth in “attractive” potential long-term partners conflicts with their current business model (a compact group of members within the football-crazed Texas geography).

The more difficult choice will be with a few critical PAC schools. The PAC is a cohesive conference, but it’s increasingly being left behind by the arms race occurring between the SEC and BIG. Revenue growth and passionate fan bases in the SEC and BIG are transforming those conferences athletic departments into something that a few PAC schools may envy but will not be able to achieve as members of the PAC. USC, UCLA and Stanford athletic departments likely rightly believe their institutions should be peers with the Michigans/Floridas/Georgias/etc. They need to convince their school presidents to allow a new partnership for athletics. So long as the critical heavyweight PAC schools insist on a slight majority of the new membership and that both TX and OK join...the merger should work out to their long-term benefit.

Another reason why a merger that leaves out some current universities may work...other than the 5 heavyweight schools, most schools don’t have much leverage or alternatives. WA and UCB have good value, but they are geographically isolated. OR, AZ, ASU, UT, CO, KS, TCU and OkSU are not being courted by the SEC or BIG...their value largely results from playing against the heavyweight schools. WSU, OrSU, ISU, KStU, BU and WVU should be available if the new conference needs to expand in the future.

(03-26-2020 09:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  From JR's equity in athletics chart, below are the Big 12 and Pac 12 schools ranked in revenue. Note that Baylor and WVU are basically equal to the Arizona schools and TCU is basically equal to USC and Kansas:

1. Texas: $215,829,101
2. Oklahoma: $159,286,136
3. Stanford $139,390,932
4. Washington: $133,792,677
5. U.C.L.A.: $127,339,042
6. Kansas: $119,768,008
7. U.S.C.: $118,687,120
8. T.C.U.: $118,496,653
9. Oregon: $108,500,370
10. Arizona: $102,275,918
11. Arizona State: $101,836,361
12. Baylor: $101,243,920
13. West Virginia: $101,095,223
14. Colorado: $98,413,285
15. California: $94,646,123
16. Utah: $94,177,912
17. Oklahoma State: $91,066952
18. Kansas State: $89,919,819
19. Texas Tech: $86,442,709
20. Oregon State: $82,364,021
21. Iowa State: $79,860,045
22. Washington State: $75,957,792

Their are a number of problems with using this backward metric as a go forward guide:
1) the TV revenues would overweight the Big 12 as 10 schools are splitting a deal offered to 12.
2) the complete disaster that is the PAC-12 networks doesn’t capture the market potential of some PAC-12 schools.
3) it overly weights current football performance instead of market potential in good and bad years. Leaving out Colorado/Denver would be foolish as an example.
4) I don’t believe Utah was on a full TV share yet as the numbers a published so it dramatically undervalues Utah and the SLC market.

(03-28-2020 12:29 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-28-2020 03:20 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  "I and I'm guessing a lot of people on this board believe that if the Pac-12 and Big 12 took its strongest members and combined it could form the "third" major and it would be stronger than either of the two conferences separately. The question is how do we do it? The Pac-12 people would like the Pac-12 to invite the Big 12's strongest members, the Big 12 people would like it the other way around, others think it should be a compromise where we take some of which conference but if so how many from each conference? In the compromise, both the Pac-12 schools and the Big 12 schools will want more of their conferences's schools represented.

In the end, the most likely outcome is neither side will be satisfied and the Pac-12 and Big 12 will remain two separate conferences. The real winners are the SEC and Big Ten who get will stay the two dominant conferences without the threat of the California-Texas joint conference (not that that conference would be a threat to either but if it doesn't happen no doubt they would still be the top two). We all know they (with the exception of the 6-8 schools that get left out) would be stronger together than apart. The problem is the schools themselves don't know that."

The Pac 12 is reportedly in financial trouble. The Big XII consists of only Texas and Oklahoma essentially. If there is going to be any changes to the status quo, the two conferences have to be combined. It will all come down to finances and college football playoff opportunities which the Pac 12 has been left out of in recent years. We'll see.

UT-Austin and OK have lots of options. So long as OK continues its partnership with UT-Austin, re-upping with the B12 or merging with the PAC can result in growth over the next 10+ years. If OK wants to separate from TX, then the SEC gains a lot of leverage because the SEC becomes their clear best option. For UT-Austin, much like the last round of P5 realignment they can choose almost any scenario and make it work. In a merger with the PAC, UT-Austin and OK will likely prevail in designing the parameters of the founding merger...their dilemma will be that the PAC’s depth in “attractive” potential long-term partners conflicts with their current business model (a compact group of members within the football-crazed Texas geography).

The more difficult choice will be with a few critical PAC schools. The PAC is a cohesive conference, but it’s increasingly being left behind by the arms race occurring between the SEC and BIG. Revenue growth and passionate fan bases in the SEC and BIG are transforming those conferences athletic departments into something that a few PAC schools may envy but will not be able to achieve as members of the PAC. USC, UCLA and Stanford athletic departments likely rightly believe their institutions should be peers with the Michigans/Floridas/Georgias/etc. They need to convince their school presidents to allow a new partnership for athletics. So long as the critical heavyweight PAC schools insist on a slight majority of the new membership and that both TX and OK join...the merger should work out to their long-term benefit.

Another reason why a merger that leaves out some current universities may work...other than the 5 heavyweight schools, most schools don’t have much leverage or alternatives. WA and UCB have good value, but they are geographically isolated. OR, AZ, ASU, UT, CO, KS, TCU and OkSU are not being courted by the SEC or BIG...their value largely results from playing against the heavyweight schools. WSU, OrSU, ISU, KStU, BU and WVU should be available if the new conference needs to expand in the future.

I don’t think that UT-Austin would ever go to the SEC and open up Texas to the SEC for recruiting. Or ever be in the same conference again with Texas A&M. Also they would not be able to dominate the Big 10 like they are accustomed to. The ACC is too far away for their Olympic sports. So their best option is either standing pat or merging with the PAC 12. My bet is that they will merge.

(03-28-2020 12:59 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-26-2020 09:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  From JR's equity in athletics chart, below are the Big 12 and Pac 12 schools ranked in revenue. Note that Baylor and WVU are basically equal to the Arizona schools and TCU is basically equal to USC and Kansas:

1. Texas: $215,829,101
2. Oklahoma: $159,286,136
3. Stanford $139,390,932
4. Washington: $133,792,677
5. U.C.L.A.: $127,339,042
6. Kansas: $119,768,008
7. U.S.C.: $118,687,120
8. T.C.U.: $118,496,653
9. Oregon: $108,500,370
10. Arizona: $102,275,918
11. Arizona State: $101,836,361
12. Baylor: $101,243,920
13. West Virginia: $101,095,223
14. Colorado: $98,413,285
15. California: $94,646,123
16. Utah: $94,177,912
17. Oklahoma State: $91,066952
18. Kansas State: $89,919,819
19. Texas Tech: $86,442,709
20. Oregon State: $82,364,021
21. Iowa State: $79,860,045
22. Washington State: $75,957,792

Their are a number of problems with using this backward metric as a go forward guide:
1) the TV revenues would overweight the Big 12 as 10 schools are splitting a deal offered to 12.
2) the complete disaster that is the PAC-12 networks doesn’t capture the market potential of some PAC-12 schools.
3) it overly weights current football performance instead of market potential in good and bad years. Leaving out Colorado/Denver would be foolish as an example.
4) I don’t believe Utah was on a full TV share yet as the numbers a published so it dramatically undervalues Utah and the SLC market.

That's the point.. ESPN and FOX still paid the Big 12 huge money despite there only 10 schools. If everything stays status quo when the GOR expire and new negotiations begins, who do you feel will get the most? the current Pac 12 or the current Big 12 (10)? I would be interested in seeing how the TV ratings for both leagues did in comparison of one another. Not just in football, but in CBB too.

[/quote]

I don’t think that UT-Austin would ever go to the SEC and open up Texas to the SEC for recruiting. Or ever be in the same conference again with Texas A&M. Also they would not be able to dominate the Big 10 like they are accustomed to. The ACC is too far away for their Olympic sports. So their best option is either standing pat or merging with the PAC 12. My bet is that they will merge.
[/quote]

umm.. Texas has been open country for recruiting for several years now. And there isn't real hatred towards aggy to think that they would never be in the same conference again. Now from the aggy side that may be true but if Texas wanted to be a part of the SEC, it has a red phone directly to the sec commish office.

I don't want Texas in the Big 10 because I don't find games in Wisconsin, Minnesota, or champagne all that compelling.. Might as well keep playing in Ames, Manhattan. Has nothing to do with "competing", the big 10 adds nothing. What recruit hot bed do they have? All I see is more kids going from Texas to the midwest.

Might as well stay in the Big 12 til the media rights/money dictate them somewhere else. I would love to add the footprints of AZ and SoCal.. or can just go ahead and get in on the action to the east recruiting beds of LA, GA and FL.

Also, schools like UM and tosu aren't gonna bully around Texas either with the politics.. same for Bama and FL. I see a lot of fighting between Texas and Stanford (if the rumors of them are true).. which would make a merger feel so much like the original SWC, Big 8 agreement.

In order to boot Washington State and Oregon State and include Texas Tech and Kansas, a new conference would have to be formed ala when the Big XII was formed or when the MWC was formed.

(03-28-2020 02:08 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  In order to boot Washington State and Oregon State and include Texas Tech and Kansas, a new conference would have to be formed ala when the Big XII was formed or when the MWC was formed.

The remaining 12 could just pull a Catholic 7 maneuver on them and keep the name although they'd probably just name the new conference the "Pacific 14" (Pac-12 minus Washington State and Oregon State plus Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas Tech).

I don't know what the updated rules are but isn't it if at least 7 stay together they get to keep the NCAA men's basketball autobid? When the Big East split, not only did the new Big East get one but the AAC got one as well. Of course the NCAA will just make up a rule or change a rule and give this conference an autobid, especially if Kansas is a part of this conference. It really won't matter if this conference gets an autobid or not.